Cowshed

I have gone through a 7 -16 coaching cycle, and numerous players I coached now have entered Western League, and couple higher as 16/17/18 year olds. I know one at Briz, one at Hengrove, two at Keynsham and now three who have recently joined Bishop Sutton. Bishop Sutton have had a horrific time, the team was absurdly poor at one point for the level it was playing, and over the last month with a new Manager they now are improving, with the sevens and eights they were conceding dramatically reducing. Bishop Sutton now are competitively losing e.g. 4-0 v top of the table Radstock with kids who will improve. The new manager has improved them, the kids have improved them, and hopefully they can with relegation gain some momentum now for next season, with players stepping up from their U18's who are a decent squad.

There it is clarity. Communication. The same way throughout the club cannot be the same. The pedant in me notes you cant play the same way when academy teams at early ages play seven a side, nine, and at U13 this becomes eleven. Through those stages kids are training through a syllabus that creates skills, they (kids) cant deal with lots of tactics and input mentally, this promotes slower learning, so young players are going through stages, like terms focussing on topics, using learning activities that drip in technical aspects and tactical aspects slowly over months and years. Through small sided games and in non competitive football players play a variety of positions, its development. The U16 - U21 to XI are not doing the above. They are not playing the same formations and are not approaching games with the same intent.

Exposing kids to variables systems of play, is wildly thought to be not beneficial. Young players lack the cognitive understanding. Episodic training does not create deeper learning versus periodized training. Bristol City don't train young players only one way, and most clubs do not either. Young players go through age related phases and the training reflects the age related priorities. Tactics at early ages are very rudimentary (understanding), skill creation is the priority. Players at early ages will generally play in multiple positions at academies, and development centres through foundation and youth stages. Post youth stage is professional development. Clubs do not play one system, systems are playing systems, variables of playing systems, and these playing systems won't be one formation systems. Even Ajax and Barcelona don't use one system.

Its also a curiosity as Lee Johnson would have been going through training that was episodic at BCFC. There was no one model guiding his football at BCFC. Lee Johnsons football had morphing styles. Football of styles means less time is spent on periodisation, the training jumps from topic to topic - Episodic. This means that training is less integrated, not more, and learning is as not as internalised (deep). Yes, really.

Table | Division One | Toolstation Western Football League (thefa.com) Bishop Sutton 33 games 0 wins 2 draws .

The poster used the word education. At u18 players are educated. Educated with the intent players play for the XI. At the U18 stage you would expect to see synergy in the football from the U18 's to the XI. Pleasing result. A difficult watch.

CFG has existed for ten years, There are 11/12/13 clubs in the group. Bolivar build up from the back, so do Man City so do New York and so do clubs who have been playing their variations of possession football longer than the CFG group existed. I recently posted the Liverpool decision making tree, those principles are used right across football. They apply to the teams in the CFG group. The principles were standard coaching methodology, but how those standards are applied widely differs. Bristol City may and do use similar principles to Liverpool, or Man City, or Brighton or any number of teams but the football clearly differs. Bristol City play very differently to Man City. The sub principles, that break down the approach to the football are very very different from the GK to the inverting FB's, rotating CB, the patterns, the lopsided formations .. That is unique. There is a cost issue with any approach to football. Being able to run explosively and have a high recovery speed post explosive movement is a skill. Pressing a ball for intensely twenty seconds one player takes ten seconds to recover another takes two minutes. That is sometimes called defensive tactical intensity. Think Famara v Bobby Reid. High DTI is prized by some teams because they need intense runners. Add pace. These physical elements have costs. Bristol City are not in the hes a great header of the ball, hes great one v one, hes positionally great, he is really strong, he is really quick, he can bring the ball out, he has range long, and all that market. Bristol City can prioritize elements of players abilities that most suit the football. Compromise can also be made where players don't have to be of a level across all their skills, Marlon Pack (yes midfield) distributed the ball efficiently, while many can run faster pushing a wheel barrow. That was synching aptitudes and that is what any progressing and successful team do. Improvement in key positions, better than average, good at key skills the team needs is not that elite market.

Bristol City don't play like Man City and are not attempting to. In regards to your point about high intensity, pace and counter attack would this not also require players that are highly skilled? Intensity and pace are skills.

Overload to isolate. This may interest. Its from somewhere called Liverpool. If you can't penetrate and this includes wing play, keep possession and start again.

Its advisory. The advised number of headers is five in a session once a month. Don't tell the parents!! Its a point that football may be evolving - Wingers. Guardiola is doing something unique. Aspects are possible in teams without world class players. Prioritise what is valued.

Your heading guidance might be wrong there. Man City use a winger in Doku. Man City are playing high wide and deep. This could be history repeating but Man City formations in possession have become overtly lop sided and attacking. The majority of the team are in advance of the ball, Stones leave CB and pushes into midfield, the full backs, wing backs push up into advanced positions and invert. The team is regularly playing with two CB at the back, and sometimes one as Ederson leaves his goal to become a CB in possession. Man Citys shape becomes 2-3-5 and on. If Ederson steps in they are using eleven outfield players with width depth and a overload in midfield. For anybody who thinks Liam Manning is copying any of that, he is not.

Doku.

Its the only dead ball where a team gets more than ten metres of space. Opportunity and more time to make decisions. Decisions that can be positive, negative and ... There is a decision there.

Bayern Munich happened and inverting Robben and Ribery - Right footer on the left attacks a right footed defender weaker defending foot creating space more easily for shots, and making the target bigger. Inversion also can create improved passing patterns as passing inside off the dominant foot becomes frequently easier.

The use of wingers has been in decline for decades. The game evolving away from 4-4-2 v 4-4-2 made wing play less effective. Midfield has become more about numerical superiority, meaning wingers will be far less likely to face up 1v1 versus an isolated opponent when the opposition has 3/4 screening midfielders. Having a winger will frequently mean your team will be outnumbered centrally, the opposite of what many teams want.

A third approach. Build from the back positionally with the intent of creating numerical advantage, and overload the opponents/ unbalance the opponents and when they change shape, switch swiftly play and isolate players 1v1 on the opposite side of the pitch. The third approach requires players to be fluent at their task, not get dusty from their lack of movement, and for moss not to develop on the ball because its moving so slowly. Fourth, Driving to release, committing opponents to penetrate. See point above.

The team’s formation yesterday in possession was? Three, something, something, one. I think players were inverted but they were moving so slowly after the first twenty minutes it was not evident. In the second half City went two, something, something, one. At points in the second half Max O’Leary left his goal and joined in with small sided games at the back. That’s three shapes at the back. And there were more. Multiple shapes going forward. Teams across the FC are not collectively playing like that. They were not last month, or last year. Err Brian?

I didn't say Brian Tinnion was lying. He may be talking about the new future. BCFC have jumped from approach to approach. Bristol City have not been doing long terms. And this new future is another change to a change which won't be a long term either. There has not been a model guiding the football over the last few years. From the U9's through to U16's to the 21's to the XI teams were not playing the same way under Nigel Pearson. As was the case going back to Lee Johnson. I will have a read of your earlier post.

In 2016 Lee Johnson stated similar and it was not present throughout the FC. What Brian Tinnion is referring to there is what may be the intent in the future, its not been the reality of the past eight years. Being pedantic the academy doesn't start at U8. Development teams play at that age. In City's foundation stages up to U11 teams are not playing one way. Bristol City have not had one style through U9 - 16, and U18 - U23 (now 21's) to the first team from Lee Johnsons time up to Nigel Pearson. From SGS to the HPC, and having a family member, and ex players in the academy since 2015 I have seen BCFC using varying approaches to the football. Football that has frequently differed significantly to the XI. If there was a playing model driving those years .. There wasn't. No, De Zerbis football differs. It is not totally different, or abandoning fundamentally what had occurred before. There is a clear continuance of principles over a long term.

Harry Bristol City don't have a philosophy that dictates teams from U8's through to the first team will play the same way. Brighton from 2019 with the appointment of Graham Potter to Zerbi in 2022 till now have very much had a dictated playing philosophy throughout their FC.

Mehmeti short period on the pitch was an improvement. Showed for the ball. Looked to break lines. Beat his man, put a good cross in. Didn't look like he belonged leagues lower.

There is a wide spread of quality but shouldn't be so wide for official games. Synthetic pitches should be accredited by the FA. A high quality 3G and 4G and the two frequently are the same will be accredited by the FA (normally) if the owners want the pitches used for official football, and this includes a cost the FA. 3G specific to football to hockey to rugby is different. Hockey G = fast. Football slower. Rugby = Softer. That is bases and height of the grass being different = 3G behaving differently. There isn't a proper industry standard of what the differences are so everything gets called 3G, or 4G. G should stand for generational developments, and doesn't. There are new pitches in Bristol calling themselves 3G which are not of the high standard of Keynshams Towns relentlessly used pitch. There are 5G pitches and expect to see these .. Inside Man Citys dome.

I agree with your point about facilities, but 3G is not almost always a superior surface. The ball moves faster and bounces higher versus grass, and playing repeatedly on 3G puts more strain on limbs, the surface is harder and this increases impact. Ideally football should be trained and played on varying surfaces.

Energy and effort in a sentence about Famara. His time at BCFC was distinguished by a lack of both.

There are lots of reasons. Footballers will not maintain peak mental and physical performance every game, every week, every month. Performance over a season ebbs and flows. You and I in our employment would not withstand the intensity of ninety minutes of football for eight hours. Physically our bodies and minds do not have the capacity to. The best player from around your SN12 parts, a player I was acquainted with showing my age was Fitzroy Simpson. Fitzroy at a young age was remarkable. He was small in stature, but remarkable versus peers in technical ability, and exceptional in his drive and focus (mind set). That mindset of being driven, wanting to be the best drove relentlessly Fitzroy through youth football, and when Fitzroy became a pro that mentality monster mindset was no longer remarkable and exceptional, it was normal. Pros generally are all very very driven individuals, they possess mind sets the rest of us do not have, they dug deeper to get where they there. Footballers are resilient, they made sacrifices to get there the rest of us didn't. Throughout football there are levels obviously, and at each level the demands and expectations rise. The higher the level the higher players stay closer to their peak performance. At the top levels the players are not just mentality monsters, their the outliers of driven mind set staying at and closer to their peak performance longer. Even Fergusons, and Klopps etc players have days when their not at it, the best have less of them. Bristol City players are not top level. The players will experience more ebbs. All clubs are acutely aware of psychological drivers. Bristol City have employed Bill Beswick in the past, a renowned sports psychologist to support players. Individually BCFC will work individually and holistically on mindset with players. City will pore over aspects of the physical, technical, tactical and psychological aspects of the game attempting to send out players physically and mentally in the best shape they can be, and frequently City won't because across elements there players are carrying knocks (effects mindset), players are carry doubt about themselves and their tasks on the pitch, players are jaded, players struggle under pressure, and on go a whole spectrum of variables that effect players mentality, players that are human. I will finish with this Could it be frustration that aspects of their life are controlled generating a negative mindset? It an interesting question. Players have to sacrifice aspects of their life like autonomy. Football clubs take control of their lives. If individuals do not think these sacrifices are fair, and do not accept losing autonomy the consequences should be expected to be negative. The outcomes generally are reversed because footballers accept the sacrifices, and the quest to be the best they can. Taking away noise in a footballers life, normal life to the rest of us and putting nutrition, rest, recovery, aspects of life in the hands of the clubs professionals is designed to improve and maintain the individual physically, and also mentally so they remain more task (the football) focussed and far more likely to maintain positive growth/challenge states.